Separation of Church & State
 

I cannot see anything other than the complete separation of the two as acceptable and have never heard a compelling argument for anything different.
I am open to rational debate, however.

One thing that is certain, this nation was founded upon the principal of the separation of church(any and all religion) and state.

IMO, all forms of religion need to be removed from the Pledge (as the writer intended), money, courts, congress and anything else our taxes touch.

The country was founded on the principle of not establishing an official state religion. But of course, that fact does not fall in line with your agenda, so I'm wasting my electrons ...

I think it is hard to separate the two because of there many similarities. The two main things, being that they promote community, and try to keep everyone on there best behavior. Unfortunately, it is more prevalent in some places then others. The county which borders mine is a dry county, meaning they do not serve alcohol anywhere in the county on Sunday's.

I have never seen anything to back that up.
However, I have read and presented quite a bit that backs-up my assertion.
Please show me your evidence.
It is very easy, just do not allow it.
If a store does not want to sell alcohol on Sunday, or at all, that is fine... but no laws based on religion should ever be entertained, much less allowed. Legislating morality in any way is silly.

The framers didn't found this country, the people did.
Our country was founded by the people, when they voted to accept the Constitution as the rule of law, that everyone would abide by. They did not vote on the framers intentions, asides or public/private comments. Nor did they vote on any speeches any politician made before or after.
Therefore what's actually in the Constitution is all that matters.

Being 'dry' should have no basis in religion. Once religion becomes anything more than a relationship between one and his god - especially when the beliefs of one religion are imposed upon anyone else - then that is the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, a Jihad, and anything else done in the glory of a god.

It's quite easy to separate the two. Once anything religious becomes justification, then that is satanism. Yes, religions and secular societies do share some common values. But when citing a reason for doing something or for passing a law, then any reference to a religious belief is from satanism.

We have principles based in rules once from religion, dictators, and kings only because we learn from history. Does that mean we still use all their rules? Of course not. We have already taken the good parts. We have and sometimes still are disposing of perverted thoughts and outright biases from kings, dictators, and religion. IOW we are done with those rules. We are now a secular society. We look back upon those old rules only to learn their lessons - good and bad. Those are now old and now obsolete systems of government. And yes - religion once was part of government. Therefore bad governments existed.

It is no accident that pedophilia was all but promoted by a religious institution. Just like the Spanish Inquisition continued right on into the 20th Century. Those are the lessons of religion. Those realities have not changed as demonstrated by the hate so often promoted by politically active evangelicals.

One thing we learned repeatedly - at least those who are educated enough to have learned them - is that religion has no place in ruling men. Religion is only a relationship between you and your god - period.

From Wiki

Your evidence relates to the Jefferson letter to Danbury Baptists, right? The one in which he's assuring them that the government won't be interfering in their ability to worship as they choose?

Where'd I get my funny ideas about religious expression from?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

From Findlaw:

Establishment of Religion

''[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.'' 41 ''[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.'' Supp.3 However, the Court's reading of the clause has never resulted in the barring of all assistance which aids, however incidentally, a religious institution. Outside this area, the decisions generally have more rigorously prohibited what may be deemed governmental promotion of religious doctrine.

This clearly prohibits the government's promotion of religious doctrine.

[nitpick] That's not a dry county, just a county with "Blue Laws." Many, many places have various restrictions about alcohol on Sundays. A dry county has no alcohol sold any day of the week, period. But you can usually get around it because they allow them in "private clubs," so a restaurant can have you fill out a card to become a "member," and then you can buy alcohol (but you can't take it home.) [/nitpick]

A more useful conversation might be:
Why blurring the lines between Church and State is a bad idea, rather than who wrote what about why they thought it might be a bad idea.

The very last frame of my video clearly states it.

I don't think they should start Senate session with a religious invocation, but if they do, they should let all religions participate.

Some disagree. Read the comments. :eek:

the comments are pretty scary, but what do you expect from an "American family" blog?

Unsurprisingly, he was heckled.